I have read the comments on s570 vs dual boards few pages back, but as they are now 4 weeks back: Any news ? I am still on Dual board with 957, have not yet started s570, as other priorities needed my time and I did not see it as a priority when it is not an improvement overall. Currently I use the dual buffalos in asynchron mode with their own 100mhz clocks on board...thanks for your input.

If you use the Buffalos with asynch (100MHz clocks on the buffalos), I would expect very little difference between DualXO board and Si570.

The Si570 does allow for dual mono synchronous clocking so that might provide some improvement (many others have reported improvement from synch clocking, though I'm not aware of anyone using it in a dual mono config).

This forum (AND MANY OTHERS) would function so much more effectively and with much more civility if people stopped questioning other's experience when they listen to their own system

Absolutely. They would function so much more effectively - as a social forum, intended to give the participants a warm, fuzzy feeling. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to find technical solutions that provide the best possible sound quality, questioning claims and debating different views is absolutely essential.

The fundamental problem is that not everybody can be right, no matter how much we would like to be able to tell them they are, and a specific problem in audio is that perceptual issues are a major part of the experience, and have to be taken into account.

I have read the comments on s570 vs dual boards few pages back, but as they are now 4 weeks back: Any news ? I am still on Dual board with 957

My setup uses a single B3 running async. The freebie crystals were outright horrible in my setup, but the 957 22/24 sounded very good indeed. Changing this to 45/49 brought in further improvement and some stuff sounded jaw-droppingly good.

The 570 powered from a tps7a changed the sound quite a bit but not in the same direction. The "analogue" stereotype comes to mind - images are no longer chiseled but more diffuse, overall timbre has mellowed down a bit, bass is definitely softer. More complex passages sound a bit confused.

I can well imagine someone loving it, but it probably won't be me. There is a lot of subtlety and pleasing detail and the final verdict is probably going to be system-dependent. It is still early days and impressions may change after break-in. Ian mentions about the importance of the PS decoupling caps and i still haven't changed the ones on board. Not even sure what is the difference with the spare ones in the kit. Otoh, the sound with the 45/49 950s is so good i somehow doubt a cap change will make such a dramatic difference...

Just back home. Glad to see a lot of new development on the thread. But I'm still not get time going through all of them. Sorry for couldn't provide support while I was traveling. Just hope I can get rid of the jet lag quickly. Please let me know what can I do for your project.

Just back home. Glad to see a lot of new development on the thread. But I'm still not get time going through all of them. Sorry for couldn't provide support while I was traveling. Just hope I can get rid of the jet lag quickly. Please let me know what can I do for your project.

Hey Ian, will shoot you an email about getting your NTD1 stuff off to you now that you're back.

Ian, thread has started turning into Woo land again, oh well it takes all sorts. its funny how because of a particular wording that was used in the manual stuff, that somehow people think that the si570 is more vulnerable than any other clock used with the fifo. the clock was and has always been the main area left for any possibility of tweaking with fifo, in fact powered directly, other clocks like that on the dual XO board (i'll put most likely here ) have much worse PSRR than si570.

Ian wanted to leave it more open to tweaking the power supply and didnt put regulators on there, we have more and more woo and now unfortunately A_SA, you have added to the woo...

it was put in the manual so it has more weight, it does actually have an effect (to the regulator performance) because the tpa reg is mostly packaged with the si570, that means both have a comment about its caps and now we have people scared to use it...

group dynamics, this would make an interesting study.

possible solution, use the most full on low noise regulator you have at your disposal, or batteries with the si570 right off the bat.

I bought the sis clock board but my situation has changed so I'm gonna be needing the SPDIF output board and on the receiving end there's a TI SRC4382 which says in the datasheet Master Clock Input (MCLK) Frequency, fMCLK MAX 27.7 MHz.

1) So I guess my best solution is buying a pair of crystek 22/24 clocks and using the dual XO board?

2) Is there any advantage in this case using the isolator board with the dual XO board since the SPDIF board receives power from the FIFO board through the ribbon cable? Or can I remove the ribbon cable and power the spdif board from the same powersupply as the dual XO board after the isolator/ Or maybe another powersupply if there's any advantage to that?

On the weekend just gone I finally had all the parts I needed in place, so I soldered up one of my TPS7A regulator boards as well as a v2.5 isolator board and modified one of my spare regulators to give me 6V for the FIFO (I had no adjustable regs here only fixed output regs at voltages that weren't suitable for the FIFO). Finally I was able to power up my own FIFO. All works as intended!